There’s A Third Way To Run Economies To Solve ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach May 23, 2022 – 7:00 am

Usually, when you pin a Warmist down they’re happy to demonize capitalism and say it should be replaced, but, rarely tell you what they want to replace it with. But, there’s apparently a third way

Capitalism and Climate Change: A Centrist Pragmatism Capable of Solving the Climate Crisis

The conventional debate around the root causes and solutions to the worsening climate crisis follows a classic left-right divide. On one hand, the left-leaning camp holds that capitalism and its unregulated rise over the decades are fully responsible for the unchecked greed that got us here and that in order to save our planet, capitalism must be completely undone and replaced. On the other hand, the right-leaning camp believes that market forces alone can create the right incentives and mobilise the necessary resources to achieve rapid and deep cuts to global carbon emissions. Further along the spectrum still, a more radically conservative approach believes that we can continue business as usual and that the market will correct course as it has done in the past.

Both camps suffer from a multitude of shortcomings, including short-termism and selfish dogmatism. If we were to adopt the socialist course of action to dissolve capitalism and rebuild a new economic system from scratch focused on the climate, there wouldn’t be any time left to actually put in place measures to drastically curtail global warming. Similarly, business leaders need to recognise that government and corporations can and must work together to create the necessary incentives and markets to protect our planet from climate disaster, and acknowledge that a business-as-usual scenario risks taking us over the edge of the cliff. The stark reality is that global warming doesn’t abide by traditional political lines and any combination of mitigating factors will not fall neatly into any ideological bucket.

Government and business working together? Is that the 3rd way?

Although the worst effects of climate change will manifest themselves on civil society in the form of catastrophic habitat destruction and mass migration, the root cause of the crisis is a practical one and not ideological. We simply have to take urgent action to radically cut our carbon emissions and transition completely to a low carbon economy built on renewable sources of energy and production. This essay, therefore, calls for a more pragmatic ‘third way’ to how we tackle the climate crisis, one that rejects traditional left-right ideologies. Akin to the third way political stance that became popular in the late 1990s amongst world leaders such as Tony Blair and Bill Clinton that attempted to reconcile centre-left social policy with centre-right economic policy, today’s climate woes call for a centrist pragmatism that combines the best use cases of government intervention and the innovative might of market forces.

So, basically, massive government intervention in the market? What’s that called per Political Theory 101? Socialism. But, if you add in forcing citizens to act a certain way, we’re now over in the Authoritarian Model. Also known as Progressivism. Nice Fascism.

Even as we shift to more renewable sources of energy, new technologies might not be enough to compete with the dominance of fossil fuels. State intervention will play a crucial role in subsidising nascent new environmentally sustainable technologies that will be economically unviable at first, but at scale will make the difference in removing tens of billions of tons of emissions from the atmosphere this century. Similarly, governments around the world have been attempting to impose a carbon tax, a price that emitters will have to pay for every ton of carbon equivalent they release into the atmosphere, forcing businesses and consumers to switch to new technologies that are less carbon-intensive. These kinds of policies will be instrumental in driving large scale shifts to less carbon-intensive activities and can only be implemented by a large and effective public sector.

This third way sure looks like the Warmist’s first way. Surprise. Just repackaging the same old same old.

Read: There’s A Third Way To Run Economies To Solve ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

White House Keeps Pushing Masking

By William Teach May 23, 2022 – 6:45 am

They just won’t stop

Biden COVID Advisor Jha: ‘When You’re in an Indoor Space, You Should Be Wearing a Mask

White House COVID-?19 response coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that Americans should be wearing a mask in crowded indoor spaces to combat the current coronavirus surge.

Anchor Martha Raddatz said, “We have the daily case number more than 100,000, I know you think the number is actually higher because of home testing, so what is your advice in these high transmission areas?”

Jha said, “First and foremost, my advice is, if you have not gotten vaccinated in the last five months, if you have not gotten boosted, now is a good time to do it. What we know is vaccines continue to provide a high level of protection against people getting seriously ill. That’s advice number one. Advice number two, I agree with Mayor Adams that when you’re in an indoor space, you should be wearing a mask. Crowded indoor places, high transmissions, people should be doing that. People have access to masks, vaccines, and therapeutics and testing.”

Piss off. The best part here is that he’s saying this while in an indoor place. Granted, he’s either doing this from home or his private office, but, still, why not wear a mask to show everyone you’re serious? There’s always the chance, too, that there are a whole bunch of people in that room shooting this interview.

But, see, the problem here is that Democrat politicians will hear this an attempt to re-institute masking. Most people will not wear an N95, and anything else is just for show. In Killadephia, er, Philadephia, they’re going to force kids to mask up again starting today. Want to see a play on Broadway? You need a mask. Many counties, cities, and States, such as Delaware and NYC, are “recommending” masking indoors. How soon till it is a mandate?

Oh, and here’s Biden

Read: White House Keeps Pushing Masking »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 22, 2022 – 1:46 pm

…is water which will dry up from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is American Power, with a post on stop the steal Republicans dominating state legislations.

It’s straight up big boobs week.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach May 22, 2022 – 10:10 am

Happy Sunday! Another great day in the Once and Future Nation of America. Getting some needed rain, the Dodgers are on a win streak, and the fish tank is still doing well. This pinup is by Elias Chatzoudis, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15 (btw, if you have a website, make sure your RSS works)

  1. White House Dossier discusses Hillary Clinton approving the leak on Trump
  2. Chicks On The Right covers NPR shaming employees for not wearing masks
  3. Dry Bones Blog notes Monkeypox
  4. The Gateway Pundit discusses Bill Maher on trans kids
  5. The Hayride covers federal morons skyrocketing gas prices
  6. The Last Refuge notes a COVID knucklehead out in Australia, and a ‘climate change’ knucklehead in
  7. The O.K. Corral has a peak Florida story, involving throwing snakes
  8. Independent Sentinel covers a Dem rep blaming white supremacy for a shooting
  9. Climate Scepticism wonders how many acronyms it takes to save a planet
  10. Green Jihad notes German farmers resorting to horse and buggy
  11. Jo Nova covers the Australian elections
  12. Not A Lot Of People Know That covers the cost of heat pumps soaring in England
  13. No Tricks Zone notes even Germans do not care much about ‘climate change’ action
  14. 357 Magnum covers how bail reform is working out
  15. And last, but not least, American Greatness discusses beating the censors

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page (nope, that’s gone, the newest Apache killed access, and the program hasn’t been upgraded since 2014). While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your Pinups for Vets calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me. I’ve also mostly alphabetized them, makes it easier scrolling the feedreader

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. And do you have a favorite blog you can recommend be added to the feedreader?

Two great sites for getting news links are Liberty Daily and Whatafinger.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

The Nation Says There’s No Place For Bystanders In The Abortion Debate

By William Teach May 22, 2022 – 8:26 am

There is no debate when it comes to abortion on demand. You cannot have a debate with the abortion supporters who screech, yell, bloviate, bellow, caterwaul, go Category 5 Apoplectic. Who accuse Republicans of wackadoodle things, have loony tunes things on their signs, wear silly handmaid costumes, etc and so on. You cannot rationally discuss this issue, which is why we’re at where we’re at. Instead of “rare, safe, and legal” Democrats treat abortion as contraception

(Breitbart) The bill was dubbed the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022, and that sounds a lot like motherhood and apple pie—except, of course, that it was about the opposite of motherhood. It was about abortion. Indeed, the bill was a radical expansion of abortion rights, superseding all state restrictions on abortion, of any kind. As such, it didn’t seek merely to codify Roe v. Wade, as Schumer claimed, but instead sought to radically expand it.

From the floor of the Senate on the 11th, Manchin said of the bill, “Make no mistake, it is not Roe v. Wade codification. It is an expansion, it wipes 500 state laws off the books, it expands abortion . . . We should not be dividing this country further than we’re already divided, and it’s really the politics of Congress that’s dividing the country.”

Speaking for the united Republican opponents of the bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), added,“Schumer … is insisting we vote to legalize abortion to the day before birth.” Graham added, “We’re one of seven nations in the world that allow abortion on-demand at 20 weeks, the fifth month in pregnancy.” And yet now, Democrats want more—they want it all.

Democrats want zero restrictions on abortion. If Republicans offered a reasonable compromise on gun control for abortion control, Democrats would balk. Hell, if we offered the Australian Solution on guns for

  • Ban all late term abortions (except in real cases where the mother’s life is in imminent danger, and the doctor must legally sign off on a specific, and legally binding, form)
  • Require parental notification for abortions for all women under 18
  • Require parental consent for all under 16 (which could be over-ruled by a judge)
  • Disallow all federal funding for abortion, including at Planned Parenthood. Want one? Pay for it yourself
  • Do away with all federal funding for operations that perform abortions
  • Require a 48 waiting period from the time a woman requests an abortion
  • All abortion facilities must adhere to medical facility guidelines. They should be at least as safe and clean as a veterinarian facility, should they not?
  • Yearly inspections of abortion facilities
  • Doctors against abortion should not be forced to perform them

Democrats would balk, and say “no.” And here’s the uber far left The Nation

There’s No Place for Bystanders in the Coming Abortion Battle

For 50 years now, people have told desperate, heart-breaking stories about what it was like to search for an abortion in the days before Roe v. Wade. These were invariably narratives of women in crisis. They sometimes involved brief discussions about economic inequality, police-state intrigue, and unwanted children, but for the most part men were invisible in them, missing in action. Where were they? And where are they now that a wall of fundamental rights seems to be crumbling away not just for women, but for all of us? This is another example of what I used to call the Bystander Boys.

Wait, I thought men weren’t allowed to have opinions, since we couldn’t get pregnant? No?

As a sportswriter, my work over these decades often brought me into a universe of male entitlement and the sort of posturing I thought of as faux masculinity. Even in that chest-beating environment, I was struck by the absence in abortion stories of what in another time would have been called manliness. What happened to that mostly storybook ideal of the brave, modest, responsible, big-hearted protector? I figured out early on not to waste time searching for him among football quarterbacks or baseball coaches, or even cops and Army officers. Much, much later, I found more people with the right stuff—that “manly” ideal—among single mothers and feminist lawyers.

Why would there be stories about abortion in sports articles? Yes, the abortion on demand supporters are purely batshit insane.

In the pre-pill early 1960s, when unwanted pregnancy was a constant chilling specter for my pre-Boomer “silent” generation, men usually talked about abortion only if their girlfriends had missed a period—when they were trying to track down that coal-country Pennsylvania doctor who performed illegal abortions with relative impunity. They might even share their fears of what an unwanted kid would do to their careers, but rarely did they bring up the typical back-alley butchery of abortion in those years that came from the hijacking of the most fundamental of rights.

Yet, now the pill is widely available, and widely affordable. As are condoms, IUC’s, implants, and so many more. Combine those with responsible sex, and there’s no need for abortion except in very rare cases. Heck, even the morning after pill, which is taken quickly before implantation takes place.

Where are those guys even today, much less their sons and grandsons, presumably still active partners in the reproductive process? Forget about moral responsibility—what about the jeopardy our lives are in as the possibility of a Trumpian-style authoritarian future closes in around us?…

…Sixty years ago, it already seemed remarkably clear to me how crucial it was that men stop leaving women to face this nightmare essentially alone—and it still does.

So, the gist of the piece is that men must, MUST, speak out and support the Democrats insane notion of abortion anytime, zero restrictions, zero consequence. The upshot of this could be that people who are on the fence are willing to stand for just ending it. They could be pushed to the extreme, rather than supporting it as rare and legal. Skipping to the end

And perhaps it’s most important to keep reminding ourselves and everyone we know that abortion isn’t the whole abortion story, that the bullies are preparing to go after the entire schoolyard, not just the girls, and (as has become so common these days) they’re going to stomp into the school-board meeting as well. Sooner or later, they’ll try to take over the school itself and, eventually, the mind and soul of this country thanks to the holes they’re about to tear in the Constitution. There are more of us than them and, if we stand together and fight, we can still win. No place for bystanders now.

Good lord, these people are nuts. See if abortion, which appears nowhere in the Constitution, is overturned at the Supreme Court, then all sorts of other things Constitutional will be ended. Keep going too far, Dems, you’ll lose the midterms even worse, and you’ll push non-moonbat people further away.

Read: The Nation Says There’s No Place For Bystanders In The Abortion Debate »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

German Farmer Sues VW Over ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach May 21, 2022 – 3:00 pm

Someone’s looking for a payday. Or attention

Farmer sues Volkswagen over climate change

A German court on Friday is set to begin hearing a case brought against Volkswagen by a farmer who claims the automaker is partly responsible for the impact that global warming is having on his family business.

“Farmers are already being hit harder and faster by climate change than expected,” the plaintiff, Ulf Allhoff-Cramer, told reporters this week ahead of the hearing before a regional court in the western town of Detmold. (snip)4

In the latest case, Allhoff-Cramer is calling for VW — the world’s second-biggest car manufacturer based on sales — to end production of combustion engine vehicles by 2030.

German automakers rejected a similar demand from environmental groups last year. (snip)

The company said lawmakers should decide on climate change measures.

“Disputes in civil courts through lawsuits against individual companies singled out for this purpose, on the other hand, are not the place or the means to do justice to this responsible task,” VW said. “We will defend this position and ask for the lawsuit to be dismissed.”

VW’s lawyers should be asking many pointed questions of Allhoff-Cramer, such as

  • Do you use fossil fueled vehicles in your farming operations?
  • Do you use any fossil fueled implements, like mowers and tractors?
  • Do you own any fossil fueled personal vehicles? If so, why have you not replaced them with EVs?
  • Why do you have cows, which climate cultists say are bad for ‘climate change?

Yeah, the photo above comes from the article. These Warmists need to mind their own business, stop trying to force their cult beliefs on Everyone Else

Read: German Farmer Sues VW Over ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in Climate Cult, Global Warming | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 21, 2022 – 1:00 pm

…are horrible cigarettes, which reminds you that fossil fuels companies can be sued just like cigarette companies, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Pacific Pundit, with a post on the stock market down for eight straight weeks.

Doubleshot below the post, check out Powerline, with a post on the Chinese coronavirus vaccines underperforming.

Read More »

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Who’s Up For A DOJ Issued License For Their Guns?

By William Teach May 21, 2022 – 10:30 am

The devil is in the details, and, I’m sure the DOJ will get those licenses to you really fast, right?

Senate Democrats propose DOJ license requirement for gun purchases

A trio of senators plan to introduce legislation on Thursday that will require residents to acquire a Department of Justice (DOJ) license before purchasing or obtaining a legal firearm.

The bill would also raise the legal age for obtaining a firearm to 21 years old.

The bill was introduced by Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).

It has virtually no chance of becoming law given GOP opposition, but gives a sense of the breadth of restrictions on gun access that some lawmakers would favor imposing in the wake of years of mass shootings in the nation.

If it has zero chance of becoming law, why bother? This only makes their unhinged gun grabbing base happy. Raising the legal age? That would receive a lawsuit the minute it was passed.

According to the bill text, the Federal Firearm Licensing Act will require residents to complete a written firearm safety test and hands-on testing, which includes firing testing, to get the license to acquire a firearm.

The license will also require those wanting to buy a gun to submit a criminal background check, fingerprints and proof of identity.

Personally, I’m not against taking a firearms safety course as part of the normal local/county process, but, exactly how would that help with the wackjobs like the Buffalo shooter, who is mentioned earlier in the article? You already get a background check to get a firearms permit, which breaks down when law enforcement and others do nor report. Fingerprints? Hell no. Proof of identity? That’s interesting, since Democrats do not want to do the same for voting. But, most of the time you have to show identification to buy one/apply for permit.

In a statement to Politico, which first reported the legislation, Booker said this is the time to “enact ambitious legislation” on this ongoing issue.

“This is the moment to enact ambitious legislation – as a nation, we must rise to it, or we are fated to witness the deadly scenes of this past weekend and years past over again,” Booker said in a statement.

How about enforcing all the existing laws? Starting with reporting to the FBI who provide the background checks.

Read: Who’s Up For A DOJ Issued License For Their Guns? »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Bill Gates Explains What You Can Do To Help Fight Climate Apocalypse

By William Teach May 21, 2022 – 7:15 am

Not him, though. He’ll keep living in his megamansion, flying his five planes and multiple helicopters, all his yachts, buying whatever he wants, living the high life

Bill Gates explains what you can do now to fight climate change

Climate change is such an overwhelming and systemic problem, it’s easy to feel there’s nothing one individual can do to fight it.

But Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates gave some concrete suggestions in an online question and answer session on Reddit on Thursday.

As a consumer, if you opt to buy more expensive products that contribute less carbon emissions, it may feel like a drop in the bucket. But if enough people buy those products, it will drive demand, leading to larger scale and pushing down the price of those climate conscious options, he said.

“As green products come out like electric cars or synthetic meat or heat pumps for home heating/cooling they will cost a bit extra. By buying these products you drive scaling up which will lead to lower prices so ‘green premiums’ are reduced,” Gates said on Reddit.

The idea of a “green premium” is one that Gates has discussed often. It’s the difference in price between a conventional product and the climate-friendly alternative.

We can all afford to overspend, right? So says the billionaire

Governments can help reduce the green premium by implementing policies that reduce the price of the climate conscious option and make the conventional variety more expensive, Gates said in a 2020 blog post about green premiums. Companies and investors can also help reduce the green premium by spending on climate friendly alternatives, investing in innovation and advocating governments.

Ah, so government can set the price? He’d be fine with that for Microsoft, right?

“When you buy an electric vehicle or a plant-based burger even though it costs more than the alternative, you’re saying to the companies that make these products: ‘There’s demand for these items. Make more and we’ll buy them,’” Gates wrote in a blog post on the topic published in 2020. “That will drive investment in research, which helps decrease the price and ultimately makes clean products more affordable and available for everyone.”

It’s so easy! On the bright side, he supports nuclear power. On the other

It’s impossible to ignore that Gates is one of the wealthiest people in the world, and with his big homes and private jets, he’s a heavy carbon emitter, and he acknowledges that. He said in his 2021 blog post that he offsets his emissions and considers his investment in climate innovations an antidote of sorts to his high emissions.

So, he’s not willing to give up his big carbon lifestyle, just pay to offset it.

Read: Bill Gates Explains What You Can Do To Help Fight Climate Apocalypse »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

San Francisco Archbishop Say Nancy Pelosi Will No Longer Receive Communion

By William Teach May 21, 2022 – 7:00 am

Now, if only the rest of those who would give communion would stop giving it to all Democrats who support abortion

From the link

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone announced Friday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is barred from receiving Holy Communion due to her pro-abortion stance — marking an escalation in a decades-long tension between the Roman Catholic Church and liberal Democratic politicians on abortion.

Cordileone has written to the California Democrat, informing her that she should not present herself for Holy Communion at Mass, and that priests will not distribute communion to her if she does present herself.

“A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others.  Therefore, universal Church law provides that such persons ‘are not to be admitted to Holy Communion,'” he says in the letter.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is unambiguous on the question of abortion, both in procuring one and assisting in the practice: “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion,” the catechism says. “This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.”

This is way, way overdue, and really should be applied to all those who vote for abortion and support abortion. Now, you have to wonder which priest will bust the mold and give her communion.

Read: San Francisco Archbishop Say Nancy Pelosi Will No Longer Receive Communion »

Posted in Democrats, Queen Nancy | 14 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove